Comparison between Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods and Evaluating the Quality of Life at Different Spatial Levels

Samira Vakilipour, Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki, Mostafa Ghodousi and Soo-Mi Choi
Additional contact information
Samira Vakilipour: Geoinformation Tech. Center of Excellence, Faculty of Geodesy & Geomatics Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran 19697, Iran
Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki: Geoinformation Tech. Center of Excellence, Faculty of Geodesy & Geomatics Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran 19697, Iran
Mostafa Ghodousi: Geoinformation Tech. Center of Excellence, Faculty of Geodesy & Geomatics Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran 19697, Iran
Soo-Mi Choi: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, and Convergence Engineering for Intelligent Drone, Sejong University, Seoul 143-747, Korea

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 7, 1-36

Abstract: Achieving a good urban form has been a problem since the formation of the earliest cities. The tendency of human populations toward living in urban environments and urbanization has made the quality of life more prominent. This article aimed to calculate the quality of life in an objective way. For this purpose, the technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), vlseKriterijumsk optimizacija kompromisno resenje (VIKOR), simple additive weighted (SAW), and elimination and choice expressing reality (ELECTRE) have been utilized. Quality of life was assessed at three spatial levels. In this regard, socioeconomic, environmental, and accessibility dimensions were considered. As a result, in the first level of comparison, sub-districts in District 6 were ranked higher than that of District 13. On the second level, for District 6, vicinity sub-districts had higher rankings than the center, and for District 13, sub-districts near the center of the city had higher rankings. In the third level, District 6 had a higher quality of life. The results of the comparison between research methods showed that the SAW method performs better in terms of stability. Based on the results of correlation tables, there was a strong and direct relationship between each pair of methods at three spatial levels. In addition, as the study area became smaller, the similarity between the methods increased.

Keywords: quality of life; spatial objective criteria; comparison of multi-criteria; decision-making methods; VIKOR; ELECTRE; TOPSIS; GIS (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/4067/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/7/4067/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:7:p:4067-:d:530989

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().